[9fans] why I'm messing with python: mercurial

[9fans] why I'm messing with python: mercurial

[ron minnich]

I feel that Plan 9 could stand to have a reasonable version control
system, which CVS certainly is not. Mecurial is written in python, is
working well for xen, so I thought I'd see if it would work at all in
python on plan9.

First step: errno :-)

thanks

ron
p.s. Give Aki and me  a present for the new year: please test our
little minimal linux + xen + plan 9 if you can. I'm using it, and I
think it's quite nice. I can't wait to try out plan 9 + xen on a
dual-core, it's already reasonably fast. Those long kernel build times
under qemu are a thing of the past. Don't forget, free with every copy
you buy, you get Aki's X11-free drawterm. A deal at twice the price!

Re: [9fans] why I'm messing with python: mercurial

[Richard Miller]

> I can't wait to try out plan 9 + xen on a
> dual-core, it's already reasonably fast.

I've run it on a two-processor VIA vt310.  An extra cpu does help with
responsiveness.  Would it be worthwhile to support multiple virtual
processors in the guest Plan 9?  It's just a matter of coding the
start-up for the extra processors ("just" - of course it's
undocumented).

-- Richard

Re: [9fans] why I'm messing with python: mercurial

[Harri Haataja]

On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 10:26:07PM -0700, ron minnich wrote:
> I feel that Plan 9 could stand to have a reasonable version control
> system, which CVS certainly is not. Mecurial is written in python, is
> working well for xen, so I thought I'd see if it would work at all in
> python on plan9.

My vote would go to darcs, but I think that the GHC runtime is quite far
away :)

Re: [9fans] why I'm messing with python: mercurial

[David Leimbach]

On 12/24/06, Harri Haataja <harriha@mail.student.oulu.fi> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 10:26:07PM -0700, ron minnich wrote:
> > I feel that Plan 9 could stand to have a reasonable version control
> > system, which CVS certainly is not. Mecurial is written in python, is
> > working well for xen, so I thought I'd see if it would work at all in
> > python on plan9.
>
> My vote would go to darcs, but I think that the GHC runtime is quite far
> away :)
>

I'd like GHC on Plan 9 quite a bit by itself,

Re: [9fans] why I'm messing with python: mercurial

[Jack Johnson]

On 12/24/06, Richard Miller <9fans@hamnavoe.com> wrote:
> I've run it on a two-processor VIA vt310.  An extra cpu does help with
> responsiveness.

Doesn't surprise me:

http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~kchak/papers/spin-pact06.pdf

If I skimmed this correctly, one thing I gleaned is that any time you
have more virtual CPUs than real CPUs (or cores, for you hyperthreaded
folks), you're going to take a measurable hit (duh).  Oh, plus one
core/CPU, for the host OS.

So, your Xen setup on a dual-core chip should be very nice.

I also just came across:

http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Lucy_Cherkasova/papers/xenqos-mware-camera-ready.pdf

but haven't skimmed it yet.

-Jack